29 June 2013 11:55 AM

More about War, the USA and God. Replies to contributors

‘HM’ writes : ‘I’m not sure that I understand what Peter Hitchens is saying here: “Had we similarly failed to fulfil our obligations to Plucky Little Belgium, and made it plain in the pre-1914 years that we would fail to do so, we would still be a major economic, naval and diplomatic power…” Does “still” mean now, in 2013? “The main threat to us came not from that, but from naval, economic and diplomatic competition, and the biggest rival we had in those spheres was the USA.” How the USA was a “threat” to Britain in 1914. What were they going to do to us? “We gained nothing substantial or lasting from either war, but lost a great deal. A poor, militarily weak Britain is much more vulnerable to continental domination than a rich, imperial Britain would have been.” This suggests that Britain would have remained “imperial” if it had avoided war. Does he mean to the present day?

**My reply. Yes, I do mean that now, in 2013, we would be better off had we stayed out. So would a lot of other people. Had we kept out of the 1914 war, I believe Germany would have defeated France by November 1914, and imposed upon her a settlement which would have ruled her out as a major Continental power for the foreseeable future, if not forever. She was already in grave decline, and would prove in 1940 that she did not really have the wealth the capacity or the strength to maintain the position she claimed. In any case, as a Francophile, I must add that a swift defeat in 1914 would not have been anything like as bad as either Verdun or Vichy - both consequences of the victory of the Marne.

Germany would then have gone on to attack Russia in full strength, probably in the Spring of 1915, a war which I believe would have ended with the cession of the territories which Germany eventually took over in the 1917 Peace of Brest-Litovsk. The Romanov dynasty might well have ended as a result, but Russia would not have been anything like so devastated as she was after three years of war in 1917, and I doubt very much whether the Bolsheviks would have come to power. Austria-Hungary would have survived as a pensioner of Germany, though I suspect she would eventually have been absorbed, in all but name, into the ‘European Union’ contemplated by Kaiser Wilhelm and Bethmann-Hollweg. The strain of absorbing all this new territory, and of defending herself against the possibility of revenge from the East, would have preoccupied the German military for decades to come. I suspect that the naval programme ( see below) would have been quietly scaled down as an expensive toy. Germany’s need for a European empire (now satisfied through the EU, the Euro, the Single Market and Schengen) was always her chief driving force. Britain was only important to this plan insofar as she threatened to prevent it.

The ‘threat’ from the USA was commercial rivalry, the growing importance of the dollar, the gradual pushing of Britain out of the Western hemisphere by American power (as referred to by ‘Brian’ in an earlier thread) . This process was hugely accelerated and turned into a rapid cataclysm by the 1914-18 war, which caused us to liquidate our immense holdings In South America, until 1914 in many ways an unacknowledged part of the British Empire. Without 1914-18, it might not have happened yet.

The USA had also begun (Theodore Roosevelt having read Admiral Mahan on sea power, just as Tirpitz and Wilhelm II had) to create an ocean-going global navy, with Roosevelt’s ‘Great White Fleet’ touring the hemispheres to demonstrate Uncle Sam’s new-found sea power, a far more significant development than the Kaiser’s delusional ‘Luxury Fleet’. The Washington Naval Conference and the accompanying pressure from the USA to end our naval alliance with Japan could not, I believe, have taken place had Britain not bankrupted herself in the Great War. The USA achieved her objective, after all, by simply threatening to use her superior wealth to outbuild us if we didn’t sign. These events clearly show that the USA *was* a threat to this country’s global standing (though of course not through naked violence, nor directly to our domestic liberty and independence, but in the end these amount to the same thing. If you become too weak and poor, you can’t stay free).

As soon as the opportunity arose, the USA seized the chance to curb our freedom of the seas (which she had long resented) , and to place restrictions upon our foreign policy through new international conventions. The 14 points and the League of Nations were early attempts by the USA to weaken the freedom of other states to act independently, consummated in the United Nations and the Nuremberg Tribunals, which (contrary to popular opinion) prosecuted Germany principally for ‘waging aggressive war’. Work it out. The USA, being an almost entirely contiguous land empire, and established top nation, benefits from such rules (as did the USSR from 1945-89 and as does China for the present) whereas the old-fashioned European empires scattered around the world – especially ours - did not. The general direction of US policy, as we have grown weaker, at Versailles, at Washington in 1920, at Placentia Bay, at Teheran and Yalta, at Bretton Woods, and after Suez, has necessarily been damaging to Britain. It’s not usually personal, though one cannot help thinking that a resentment of the former colonial power may run deep in some American minds. But the USA could only rise at the expense of Britain, and so she did.

And Patrick Harris said: ‘I'm legitimately curious what threat Mr. Hitchens believes the USA posed (or still does) to the UK in terms of diplomatic and naval competition.’

**See above.

Then ‘Andrew’ wrote : ‘It is not often I disagree with Mr Hitchens but I do on this occasion. His argument is intellectually coherent and all he says is basically true. But it misses the central point and I suspect he is being deliberately provocative. To give up Europe to the Germans twice in a century would have been morally wrong - regardless of Britain's national interest. Ill-prepared, incompetently-led and all the rest of it - we did the right thing precisely because we were a Christian, Anglo-Saxon country with an often pig-headed commitment to a morality (allied to a sense of Imperial destiny) not shared by other countries in Europe.’

**I thought I had disposed of the case that either war was a ‘Good War’ fought for a moral purpose. Doesn’t ‘Andrew’ realise who our principal ally was in the 1941-45 conflict, which followed our defeat in the 1939-40 war. Doesn’t he realise we were committed to that hideous alliance precisely because of that defeat? And that that defeat was brought about by our (for the second time in 50 years) idiotically threatening war without an army to back our threats?

Stalin, that’s who it was, with his concentration camps and his secret police and his torture cellars, a form of rule we helped him extend almost as far west as Hanover, and most especially into Poland, the country for which we claimed to be going to war to save in 1939. What moral purpose we served in 1914-18 I’m also not sure, as once again we were allied (from the start)with an earlier and less totalitarian Russian despotism. In both wars we used terrible methods – the deliberate starvation of German civilians by blockade in 1914-18, and the deliberate bombing of civilians in their homes in 1942-45. Had we ‘given up Europe to the Germans in 1914’, we would not have had to ‘give Europe up to the Soviets ‘ in 1945. Nor, in my view, would there ever have been any Nazis, or any concentration camps. It was the long continuation of World War One which made these things possible.

I might also add a note on the Jews of Europe. I do not believe the mad mass murder of European Jews would have taken place had Germany won a swift victory in 1914. The historical trail which leads to Hitler and the Nazis begins in the insane, demoralising horrors of the trenches. We have discussed elsewhere the fact that the ‘moral’ Allies did nothing to save the Jews from Hitler, and that the war was not fought for that reason. The effect of the 1914-18 war upon the Turkish empire and the Middle East needs a whole separate article. What if the Ottoman empire had survived?

David Anderson writes : ‘With regard to the entry into the Great War: is it worth bringing the question of the naval arms race into the discussion here? The British government might have (rightly) been a good deal more hesitant to commit itself had German not been building an enormous blue water navy of something like 50 capital ships by 1914. With no (serious) overseas empire to protect, such a force could only serve one purpose and everyone knew what it was. German control of the low countries might have meant far less to HM's government had the Kaiserliche Marine not made Germany a serious naval power. That is not to deny that the entry in the war was a disaster for Britain and the empire, or that remain aloof with our enormous navy in reserve would not have meant that the outcome of the war wouldn't have left us in a very strong position, with regard to both Germany and America. Anyhow, I think the issue is an important one which makes the decision to declare war at least comprehensible. On the German side, one has to wonder how much more formidable her armies would have been, had men and money not been directed to the navy. Apologies if Mr. Hitchens has already commented on this elsewhere.’

***Certainly it influenced British thinking. But why be provoked into war, when you are strong enough to get your way without it? Our Navy was still , in 1914, quite strong enough to ensure that the Kaiser’s Fleet stayed largely in port. Had we not been distracted by a land war in 1914, we could have ensured a far greater superiority in the event of any future conflict. If Germany had won a swift land victory over France, and then a second one over Russia, in 1914 or 1915, what use would the German fleet have been beyond the Baltic and perhaps some raids on Vladivostok? Hitler pretty quickly realised that a German surface Fleet was a waste of time in pursuit of German foreign aims, and threated to have his own Navy melted down. Submariens are a different matter, but that didn’t arise until well after the war began. The German fleet was a good reason to maintain and strengthen our own, but a poor one for joining up with France and Russia in a continental war in which we had nothing at stake.

Finally, a word of thanks to John Vernau, whose posting is a model of clear understanding. I do urge some of my New Atheist critics to read it, as they will then be able to see what their prejudice prevents them from understand. Perhaps if they at last understand what it is they don’t understand, and that they don’t understand it because they don’t want to understand it, they will at least go away to their bunkers and leave me alone. As to those atheists who say they are not moved by any hostility towards God and religion, good for them. But the New Atheists most certainly are, and often say so, and that is why they wish to assert that belief is an illegitimate choice (whereas by contrast I am quite happy to acknowledge that they may be right) . All such assertions lead inexorably to totalitarianism and censorship, as I have demonstrated elsewhere.

Mr Vernau wrote:

‘I notice that some contributors have referred to the "God hypothesis". The point of Hitchens' Choice (and the similar Pascal's Wager) is that they proceed from the assumption that it is impossible to know anything about the existence or not of God. Once this is agreed, the logic is impeccable. I don't think either gentleman would allow the possibility of a God hypothesis, as hypotheses by definition must be falsifiable or provable. Mr Hitchens has stated his position which I think is unassailable. His only vulnerability (in the assumption) is to solid proof of the existence or otherwise of God or some encompassing proof such as that all things are knowable. In the absence of such proof, mention of Bible quotes, flying teapots or dairy products of whatever colour are irrelevant.’

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

@Dermot Doyle | 11 July 2013 at 01:07 PM

"The Big Band? I knew Humphrey Lyttleton was old but not that old?,"

Great point. I didn't know that either. So at least we have something in common. We both didn't know something.

"Hang on here though, who mentioned the Bible?

'Intelligent Design' is an anagram of 'Bible'. Thought you had me fooled for a moment, didn't you Mr Doyle.

"According to Genesis 2:7 Adam is formed from the soil or dust of the earth. Thousands of years after that was written, subsequent scientific discovery confirms that humans are constructed from carbon atoms which surprise surprise, are found in soil."

No kidding. Could it be that the food we eat is grown in the soil? Just a thought.

"Many "educated" atheists laugh at the Adam from clay story, but if they just looked a little closer it would wipe the ignorant grins from their faces."

All educated people laugh at the Adam-from-clay story. Adam didn't exist. There was no 'first' human being.

"Incidentally the big band, sorry, bang you refer to should really be called the big silent flash of light because there was no medium to carry sound when this phenomenon occurred"

"shortly after the Big Band when energies had dispersed and temperatures dropped sufficiently to permit particulate matter to form and behave in coherent and predictable ways."
Paul P

The Big Band? I knew Humphrey Lyttleton was old but not that old?, and "matter to form and behave in coherent and predictable ways." Yeah right let's agree to differ (again) Hang on here though, who mentioned the Bible? I never use scripture as a scientific argument for creation, although I do occasionally point to examples of scripture confirmed by subsequent scientific discovery, and as a parting gift here's a couple:
According to Genesis 2:7 Adam is formed from the soil or dust of the earth. Thousands of years after that was written, subsequent scientific discovery confirms that humans are constructed from carbon atoms which surprise surprise, are found in soil. The Koran is actually more accurate with "And certainly did We create man from an extract of clay" (23:12) This is spot on Mr P, for one extract from clay is indeed carbon, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Many "educated" atheists laugh at the Adam from clay story, but if they just looked a little closer it would wipe the ignorant grins from their faces.
On another scriptural subject: until hieroglyphics were deciphered the only knowledge we had of a Pharaoh called Ramses was the OT Bible, but the subsequent translations confirmed the Bible account.
You may be interested to know that the Koran (unlike the Bible) says the Pharaoh died that day in the sea with his men, but there is an extraordinary twist in the tail: The book claims that Pharaoh while awaiting his impending doom in the water declared himself a believer, but God (please read this) spoke to him:
"It was said to him: "Ah now!- But a little while before, you were in rebellion!- and you did make mischief (and violence)! This day shall We save you in the body, that you may be a sign to those who come after you! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!" (10:91-92)

A sign for those who come after you? Well nothing was known of the mummified bodies of the Pharaohs when the Koran was written, but today in the Cairo museum we can gaze upon the preserved (saved) bodies of the Pharaohs of Moses time. That is an absolutely extraordinary fact from that holy book, but you will probably just bat it away like the cow's ear does a fly (but those flies won't go away all the same)

Incidentally the big band, sorry, bang you refer to should really be called the big silent flash of light because there was no medium to carry sound when this phenomenon occurred. So which is more scientifically accurate: There was a big bang, or, let there be light? Perhaps not enough to convert you Paul P, but enough to make you shift in your seat a little eh?

"We know one thing though, there's an overriding influential law controlling the whole thing, yet we are confidentially told by the likes of Paul P, a man so utterly dependant on things way out of his control (like the air he needs to breath several times a minute just to stay alive), that it all happened all by itself, and nothing is in control. No controlling influence Mr P?; no air to breath then."

Not a single law Mr Doyle, but a suite of laws, the laws that came into effect shortly after the Big Band when energies had dispersed and temperatures dropped sufficiently to permit particulate matter to form and behave in coherent and predictable ways.

As for all this happening "by itself", I don't recall ever saying that. I do recall saying that I don't know, and neither does anyone else. Your supernatural controller, your intelligent designer, is a figment of your fertile imagination in concert with a credulity that beggars belief. So amazed by it all are you that you find it possible to enjoy warm solidarity with the scribes of deserts-past who were similarly amazed. One can only smile at their credulous innocence from this distance, but you have no excuse Mr Doyle. As I have remarked to you many times sir, the Bible is not a text book. It is mythic folklore.

"This would be to contend an uncaused existence for greater complexity but not lesser complexity."

Posted by: adeledicnander.

Furthermore, is there such a thing as lesser complexity? Even a single amino acid is a highly complex structure, as are the elements it's made up of. Further down again at atomic level, we see complexity that continues to challenge the minds of the world's leading physicists. I wonder why that should be the case? Shouldn't the basic building blocks of matter be a simple thing a child of six could understand? Surely the very beginning of everything cannot be such an insoluble problem?
The world of atomic structure is now being presented as outwith the parameters of normal earthly human comprehension, requiring giant quantum leaps of the imagination to even approach a solution to the enigma.
We know one thing though, there's an overriding influential law controlling the whole thing, yet we are confidentially told by the likes of Paul P, a man so utterly dependant on things way out of his control (like the air he needs to breath several times a minute just to stay alive), that it all happened all by itself, and nothing is in control. No controlling influence Mr P?; no air to breath then.
We dwell in a universe that informs us at every turn of a supreme intelligence, and yet because of the atheist agenda nose-ring, we continue to adopt a bovine understanding toward this information. An insult to the gift of human intellect.
The cow however, has every excuse.

"Real scientist as you call them, are simply interpreting the same evidence to suit their pre-conceived beliefs."

Yes of course. I hadn't thought of that.

"You Mr P, appear to suffer from a similar form of hypnosis, for any normal thinking person looking at the structure of the rotary motor flagellum would instantly recognise it for what it is."

I do Mr D, it is the product of evolution. All the separate parts have been shown (by proper scientists doing proper science) to have performed other functions in other bacteria at earlier times. The ID contention is totally blown.

I liked the onion metaphor. Feynman used one when he described the scientific method as like peeling back an onion one layer at a time. The onion may be so big that you never get to the centre, but that doesn't matter. The joy comes from learning one new thing after another, peeling as you go. However you, Mr Doyle, together with your colleagues-in-nonsense, are already at the centre. You already know it all. There is nothing further to learn. It's all in a sacred book.

Hmm, how about that, was he really called Leonardo? You learn somthing everyday eh? Shame you don't go into such pedantic detail with your "ripped down and torn to shreds" nonsense rhetoric. What subsequent discoveries?, tell me just one, I'm all ears.
Real scientist as you call them, are simply interpreting the same evidence to suit their pre-conceived beliefs. We all know nuts and bolts are precursors of a car engine but that doesn't mean it made itse......ah, why bother?
I used to work alongside a hypnotist, and witnessed nightly people who were convinced the onion they were eating was a delicious apple, and no amount of persuasion would make them believe otherwise, even if you showed them a real apple they would look at it and say no, I have the apple yours is the onion.
You Mr P, appear to suffer from a similar form of hypnosis, for any normal thinking person looking at the structure of the rotary motor flagellum would instantly recognise it for what it is. A massive clue there even for the dumbest of the atheist dreamers, but if such bewildering complexity is not enough to convince you (well your public face, perhaps different in private contemplation) then carry on and enjoy your onion, and remain a useful fool for those "real" scientists you love so much.
The world is just a great big onion, somebody once said.

Mr Doyle, sir, joke-ist par-excellence, the poster child of the ID campaign for many a long tent-religion year was the bacterial flagella. It was ripped down and torn to shreds by subsequent discoveries by proper scientists working in the fields of evolutionary and micro biology.

Did the ID crowd give up? Certainly not. They went after other tiny complexities which they believe confound present-day microbiology and evolutionary biologists - proper biologists that is to say. Enjoy it while you can Mr Doyle. Down will come these posters too, as sure as Vinci is a hill town in Italy.

"What has happened is that ID loonies have dropped one idea after another (bacterial flagella for example, what a joke) as their irreducible complexities have been rendered perfectly reducible simplicities."

The gullible Mr P.

The bigger picture Mr P (if you're still there). Have you never read the expression: "greater than the sum of it's parts"? Would describing exactly how da Vinci physically painted the Mona Lisa be sufficient to appreciate what that work of art is?
Even if you were correct (and you're most certainly not, but I'm not going there) and the enigma that is the flagellum was fully explained in terms of incremental steps; one must still comprehend this unworldly machine that rotates at speeds upwards of 50,000 rpm (50,000 for goodness sake), can reverse to spin at the same speed in the opposite direction within a quarter turn, and on top af all that, millions of em would fit on a pin head.
The Flagellum must rank as the world's greatest example of: greater than the sum of it's parts. It's here, it exists, and no amount of fumbled attempts to squeeze it into a ridiculous copying error scenario (how utterly hilarious they sound) can reduce the true enormity of this exquisite structure. Is this to be ignored because we pretend we have explained how it could come to be without any intelligent guidance?
The Flagellum and the other countless biological wonders are true spanners in the works of a theory devised by people who had no comprehension of their existence, for they are so obviously scientifically inexplicable in terms of bungling chance. I believe that if the theory's devisers had had knowledge of these biological wonders; there would have been no theory, for the scientists of Darwin's time were a more a honest and humble lot than the arrogant bullies like Dawkin's and Coyne we have today. The fact you accept any form of explanation other than intelligence says lots about you; and nothing for the truth.

Thank you, Elaine. I have some contrary responses, but they'll have to wait for another time.

It would be good if this blog featured automatic email notification of responses to comments that contained hyperlinks to those responses, a la YouTube. Then, we could respond more at our leisure and be confident that our correspondents would see our responses.

"It makes me smile in a way when I read the words of Paul P et al, still prattling on about obsolete rubbish like copying errors when some of the world's leading brains on the subject have quietly dropped the idea"

No "leading brains" have "dropped the idea", quietly or otherwise. What has happened is that ID loonies have dropped one idea after another (bacterial flagella for example, what a joke) as their irreducible complexities have been rendered perfectly reducible simplicities. I know this is a serious topic, but you have to laugh.

Advice Mr Doyle: go back to your Intelligent Designer and get your money back. Did you keep the receipt?

"But I'd still like to know when you think the tipping point will happen?"

bunker.

In my opinion it has already happened, it's just the public acceptance we await. More evolutionary biologists than you realise would admit this in private, but while the great dictator (Darwinism) still holds the power and finance; they will never admit it in public.
It makes me smile in a way when I read the words of Paul P et al, still prattling on about obsolete rubbish like copying errors when some of the world's leading brains on the subject have quietly dropped the idea. He is the Comical Ali of this bolg when it comes to this subject. Look behind you Paul?

What is needed to push it over the edge is a world-renowned scientific personality to come on board. If you read the words of scientists like Paul Davis, and James A Shapiro (I mention these two because they are still very much in the Darwin camp) they are saying it now, in spirit; if not in body, but they saw what happened to Hoyle when he challenged the consensus on abiogenesis, so naturally they are still hedging their bets. Having said that Dr Francis Collins (the head of the human genome project) acknowledge intelligent creation after considering the objective evidence which he understood better than most. Disgracefully instead of citing evidence from sub-cell activity to counteract Dr Collins, the Darwinists have as usual resorted to the only weapon they have in the face of scientific knowledge, they questioned his sanity and attack his personality. They truly are a repulsive brigade.
Read "Darwin's Doubt" by Stephen Meyer for a real scientific discussion, and catch yourself up with the latest information in the biological world.

By the way, I was not in the least troubled by your words. Bring em on, as long as you (unlike Paul P) can take it as well.

Brooks Davis,
I would like to conclude, before this thread disappears from the front page, by saying that I think it might even be inevitable that China will surpass the US in total GDP. It's simply a matter of numbers. With so many more people they can produce so much more. But that wouldn't necessarily mean that their standard of living would surpass ours. There are many countries that have a much smaller GDP then the US and have a very good standard of living. I have never been to China but I seriously wonder if the overall quality of life would surpass that in the US any time soon. For one thing, the amount of personal space at least in or around the urban centers, must be very limited. Even compared to our most densely populated areas, like the east and west coasts, I suspect that we have much more personal space. As long as we have a better quality of life we will still attract the best minds from around the world. This is one reason California can attract so many of the best and brightest from around the country and world. (but as for me, I prefer the quieter life and family friendly nature of Utah, as well as being so close to my family. Even a free mansion wouldn't get me to go back)

I also suspect that, at least currently, we have more personal freedom. And I've just joined the "Restore the Fourth" movement in hopes that we can protect it (that's in response to the NSA, in case you hadn't heard)

Brooks Davis,
Beyond the fact that I don't think there was any desire to remain part of the British empire among the people of the subcontinent (based on my conversations with Pakistanis), textbook accounts mention the fact that a 1942 uprising by the Indian National Congress may have been successfully crushed by the British, but after WW2 it was obvious that the British lacked the means to squash another one. According to those accounts officials were exhausted and they were lacking in troops.
They did still hope that India would remain part of their "imperial defense" but by the time the last viceroy arrived in India it had become clear to the Indian National Congress and its leader Jawaharlal Nehru, that unless the partition occurred they risked a descent into chaos and communal war.

Dermot - I didn't actually say that you said all those things. I said you "apparently" think them (check it).

But you did speak of "relentless volleys of new information" and that
"scientific knowledge" had "reached a state of almost irresistibility", that "Evolutionary biologists are having to duck their heads" and that the "tipping point" was "fast approaching".

In view of all that, can you not imagine my feeling of foreboding and how I trembled in fear of an Ingtellilgent Designer appearing at the imminent tipping point? - Come on, Dermot, where's your sense of humour. I was only teasing ... really!

But I'd still like to know when you think the tipping point will happen? Seriously, I mean.

bunker) Hey, Dermot, this is what you said:
"Evolutionary biologists are having to duck their heads from the relentless volleys of new information ..." "The tipping point is fast approaching. Your words - the "tipping point"!

me)Yes I agree said that.

bunker) "So the end of "Darwinism" is at hand. The "tipping point" is nigh. Evolutionists, duck your heads."

me) Slightly edited, but yes I agree I said that too.

bunker) "An Intelligent Designer will be revealed. - Er, when will the day of reckoning be, Dermot?"

me) No no, bunker, I did *not* say that, did I? This is where you enter into the fantasy-land you call your mind. Let me drag you back to the real world for a moment: I simply said establishing the impossibility of unguided creation and evolution (scientifically very possible) is in itself a conformation of an intelligent designer. Then, and only then, can we (and the atheists will be compelled by events to engage) enter into a serious consideration of the nature of the creator. Personally I know nothing, and never will, about the intentions of God. That's not too difficult to understand is it?

Sorry about the junior school teaching tactics, but one has to adopt this approach to get a point through to your mind Mr bunker.

Elaine, your country is still the freest, most prosperous, and (I'm sure) happiest country of any decent size on the face of the earth. (I deliberately exclude Switzerland, Norway and other candidates from the comparison because they are so small by population that they might as well be cities.) High-speed rail is not a critical indicator of development, it's good to see recognition of solar power as a useful supplement for energy needs rather than a replacement for fossil fuels, and America would commonly be recognized as one of the world's great oil producers if her levels of consumption didn't make her a net oil importer. Despite all of the growth in China, the USA is still the biggest manufacturer in the world.

Yet, China has the advantage of having over a billion people who are prepared to work hard for low wages. America's politicians have been piling on amazing amounts of national debt, much of it to China. The President and others in his party actually believe in the global warming/climate change fraud. Free markets, free trade and globalization seem to have become almost unquestioned virtues.

But why do you think that it wouldn't have been feasible for a Britain unweakened by the world wars to hold on to the Indian subcontinent? I've lived in the region, i.e. Sri Lanka, and I don't see why it would have been any less feasible for such a British Empire than it has been for any of the governments that have replaced it in the region.

According to some the ‘murderer’ of Freud and Marx was Karl Popper and his debunking of ideologies. He called for a clear distinction to be made between good science - the theories of which were subject to falsification; i.e. could be scientifically challenged - and what Popper called pseudo-sciences which couldn’t be tested .

"Evolutionary biologists are having to duck their heads from the relentless volleys of new information ..." "The tipping point is fast approaching. Your words - the "tipping point"!

So the end of "Darwinism" is at hand. The "tipping point" is nigh. Evolutionists, duck your heads. The atheists are doomed. An Intelligent Designer will be revealed. - Er, when will the day of reckoning be, Dermot?

Religions originally described the world not as it actually is but as it appeared to be (in the absence of evidence to the contrary). Were that not so there would have been no basis for the difference of opinion between a previous Pope and Galileo - the error of which not being conceded by the Vatican until 1992. Discoveries seen as contrary to religious belief are still being contested on this basis to this day.

Dermot apparently thinks that an Intelligent Designer is about to reveal himself..... Er, can you put a date on it?

Posted by: bunker

Do I? deary me, I wish I did know, but it's a rather silly question, because I didn't say, nor think anything of the kind. You and your kind continue to go for the straw man. Is that because there nothing from what I actually did say you feel capable of taking on?

"does anyone take Freud seriously any more? Yet at the time these colossuses were here to stay, just like the USSR. Perhaps they were just not fit enough to survive."

S Coleman

Thank you for your comment (I lost this in the flood of threads that seems to be the trend on the blog these days. I wonder if PH is trying to tell us something?), I couldn't agree more, today's news is always destined to become tomorrow's fish and chips. One wonders how many trendy movements there have been over the last few millennia, all of which have had their day and Neo-Darwinism will be no different. You say your "not sure if it possible to persuade them by argument" perhaps your right, but we can still make them squirm.
I can envisage (if humanity reaches it's logical conclusion) a world without money and wealth, both will become anathema, and be remembered as amongst mankind's greatest curses. Wealth will take on a different form and have nothing to do with property, but hey, I am a few hundred years ahead of myself there.
Certainly much of what we regard today as solid wisdom will be a source of mirth for future generations, and the idea that something as complex as an eye can construct itself by sheer bungling chance, will be viewed in the same bracket as witch-dipping.
It should be noted that throughout the history of all this toing-froing in psychological progressive consensus, there has remained one constant that goes right back to the dawn of man: Monotheistic faith, and reason for life. The current herd of intellectuals (as they perceive themselves) would do well to remember that. The one certainty is; monotheism will be here long after they have returned to the dust from which they came.

Brooks Davis-one further point, which I have been hesitant to mention. How long could Britain have realistically held onto the empire? I know that's a source of disagreement (or contention) and I don't know enough about that history (but unlike literature, I find history interesting so I should research it) which is why I didn't want to say much on that. But I know enough about the subcontinent to think that holding onto that wouldn't have been feasible.

Brooks Davis,
Yes, I agree that in this current struggle for the top dog spot the US still has size and things like natural resources to maintain the top position. I don't know if I care that we stay on top. What's more important to me is that we keep pace in standard of living with the rest of the world. And I worry about that when I hear about how we are falling behind in things like high speed rail development. It's also a worry when we develop new medical breakthroughs and then we can't get adequate healthcare to so many people. But more important than prosperity is being free and happy.
It will be a shame in some ways if we fall because it wasn't really inevitable. Take for example, the development of solar power; my brother's father in law installed just 12 solar panels on his house and with that should be able to cover 3/4 of his electricity bill. I hear that the technology for these solar panels was developed here but now they are being manufactured in China. That's kind of a shame.

But that's what I mean about natural resources. I just read that the US will soon be producing more oil than Saudi Arabia and there are tons of natural gas that could last for a long time.(although I've heard of some possible environmental problems) And like I said about the solar panels; solar power may never meet transportation needs but it could certainly supplement our energy needs. Even when it's only 32 F my face can get burned in the February sun, so it could theoretically provide a lot of energy to almost every state west of Colorado.

China will eventually get competition though. I just read an article about the rise of manufacturing in Mexico and that because their wages are still lower they are doing very well against China. It's good for us because they buy more components from us. I also think it would be good for us if their standard of living rose.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.